Re: reiserfs-utils_3.5.19-1_i386.changes REJECTED (fwd)

On 16 Jun 2000, James Troup wrote: > > >From the copyright: > > >| If you wish to integrate it with any other > > >| software system which is not GPL'd, without integrating it into an > > >| operating system kernel, then you must obtain an additional license. > > >This makes this software non-free

Re: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Joseph Carter wrote: > Okay guys, how about a few suggestions? Well, the obvious answer is that you can LGPL it, and add the restriction that the combined work must be licensed under a license that either is a) OSI-Approved Open Source (as found on www.opensource.org) or b)

Re: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Joseph Carter wrote: > Hopefully this clarifies Talin's request a bit.. I won't be able to > answer for at least 10 hours, probably longer. I'm going to BED. > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 10:29:32AM -0700, Talin wrote: > > I recieved a few suggestions which, unfortunately, se

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org:Suggestions for wording...?])

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Mark Wielaard wrote: > I think that clause 1, 2 and 3 are not a problem, but you might have to > change clause 4 and 5 into a request instead of a demand (which is a added > restriction if you want sidtribute a derived work that also uses code that > falls under the GPL). So y

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org:Suggestions for wording...?])

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Mark Wielaard wrote: > But the The Apache Software License, Version 1.1, which can be found on > does NOT contain the word please. Sorry, brain fart. It's what I get for trying to attack my backlogged mail queue on a Sunday. You're right,

Re: ilu-base: ILU's license has changed. It's free now.

Coming up with new licenses, particularly those which hope to pass the Open Source Definition, is hard to do. That's why most people would recommend you use one of the several existing certified O-S licenses. Brian On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Bill Janssen wrote: > I'm sorry, Henning, but I'm n

Re: Corel's apt frontend

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Joseph Carter wrote: > Kernel is GPL. Everything is a derivative of the kernel under your > interpretation. You can argue that Linus has allowed people to abuse the > GPL of the kernel so it's okay, however I think this would cause the GPL > to contaminate any distribution wh

Re: Corel's apt frontend

On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:45:27PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > Thoughts on the MPL? I find it a more than adequate compromise between > > the GPL's viral nature and BSD's optimal-reuse strategy. > > Netscape owns it.

Re: mutt no longer in non-us?

On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Bruce Perens wrote: > From: Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > What has changed that allows us to distribute mutt from the US to people > > outside of the US despite the fact that mutt is capable of integrating with > > strong encryption software and thereby capable of per

Re: mutt no longer in non-us?

On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Joseph Carter wrote: > If you think about prime numbers near the Mexican borders the US could try > to say you're exporting crypto. We made the decision that a simple "run > this seperate program and pipe output back to me" cannot reasonably be > considered encryption hooks.

Re: webmin license

On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: > Indeed > >a) REMIND may not be used under Microsoft Windows (3.0, 3.1, 95 > or NT) or any future version of Windows. Such use constitutes > a violation of copyright. > >b) REMIND may not be used by Cadabra Design Libraries Inc. o

Re: webmin license

On 15 Dec 1999, Henning Makholm wrote: > Brian Behlendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: > > > >a) REMIND may not be used under Microsoft Windows (3.0, 3.1, 95 > > > or NT) or any future versi

Re: reiserfs-utils_3.5.19-1_i386.changes REJECTED (fwd)

On 16 Jun 2000, James Troup wrote: > > >From the copyright: > > >| If you wish to integrate it with any other > > >| software system which is not GPL'd, without integrating it into an > > >| operating system kernel, then you must obtain an additional license. > > >This makes this software non-free.

Re: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Joseph Carter wrote: > Okay guys, how about a few suggestions? Well, the obvious answer is that you can LGPL it, and add the restriction that the combined work must be licensed under a license that either is a) OSI-Approved Open Source (as found on www.opensource.org) or b) m

Re: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Joseph Carter wrote: > Hopefully this clarifies Talin's request a bit.. I won't be able to > answer for at least 10 hours, probably longer. I'm going to BED. > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 10:29:32AM -0700, Talin wrote: > > I recieved a few suggestions which, unfortunately, see

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Mark Wielaard wrote: > I think that clause 1, 2 and 3 are not a problem, but you might have to > change clause 4 and 5 into a request instead of a demand (which is a added > restriction if you want sidtribute a derived work that also uses code that > falls under the GPL). So yo

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Mark Wielaard wrote: > But the The Apache Software License, Version 1.1, which can be found on > does NOT contain the word please. Sorry, brain fart. It's what I get for trying to attack my backlogged mail queue on a Sunday. You're right,

Re: IMAPD license problem?

On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Lori Stevens wrote: > We confirm that we have given you permission to distribute a modified > version of IMAPD on the condition that you assume all risks when you do > so and agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the University of > Washington from any and all claims or

Re: IMAPD license problem?

On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Raul Miller wrote: > Of course, if the requirements are so pervasive that they can't be > satisfied by personal action on the part of the package maintainer, > we can just drop the package. But I do not see, at the moment, that > these requirements can't be satisfied by the pa

Re: IMAPD license problem?

On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:58:49PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > What about the companies building their own distros on top of Debian? > > Do they need to obtain permission from UW if they modify the IMAPD > > package? > >

Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG

On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote: > 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by > this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person > committing the action. > > This provision of the licence blatently violates section 6 of > the DFSG whic

Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, David Starner wrote: > The DFSG is designed to be an objective standard. Not really, it's way too broad for that. If it were completely objective there'd be no debate about whether a given license violated it or not. > Anyway, if this is acceptable, then can someone put in

Re: ITP: tnt -- An AIM client for Emacs

On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 12:58:32AM -0700, Michael S. Fischer wrote: > > > It's my understanding that hurd for example doesn't have this kind of > > > exception (and I suspect never will, given the project's foundation), so > > > we'll never even see apach

Re: Source code with no (explicit) licence

Erm, is an API-for-API copy of a program taint-free? Given DJB's scant documentation, can one actually replicate it clean-room, without looking at the source code? Though I'd bet DJB would really only get up in arms about it if you called it "freeqmail" or something. Brian On Mon, 16 O

Re: orphaning fetchmail

I think it's highly ironic that the GPL has such grief with the advertising clause, when it was the advertising clause that tripped up AT&T during their lawsuit with UC Berkeley over Unix ten years ago. AT&T was using BSD code and didn't follow that license, thus (in the settlement) BSD 4.4-Lite

Re: OpenDivX license

On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > It's not an open source license. Term #6 places limitations on distributing > modified copies. Erm, so does every copyright license. To be specific, it sounds like your concern is over adherence to a standard being one of the conditions for redistrib

Re: OpenDivX license

On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 01:31:12PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > > > It's not an open source license. Term #6 places limitations on > > > distributing > > > m

Re: OpenDivX license

On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Joseph Carter wrote: > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program > in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the > program from being used in a business, or f

Re: OpenDivX license

On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Sam TH wrote: > Debian-legal has repeatedly held that requiring or prohibiting > particular behavior as a condition of distributiing modified versions > is in violation of the Fields of Endeavor clause of the DFSG. But, that's not what the issue here is. The issue is not on

Re: Libapache-mod-backhand: load balancing Apache requests.

On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Richard Braakman wrote: > Hmm. In /usr/share/doc/apache/copyright there is this clause: > > 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache" > nor may "Apache" appear in their names without prior written > permission of the Apache Group. > > This seems

Re: Libapache-mod-backhand: load balancing Apache requests.

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 01:26:13PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > I am pretty sure that such a clause has always been a part of the Apache > > licenses. The intent is pretty simple - we don't want people calling > > th

Re: Libapache-mod-backhand: load balancing Apache requests.

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, David Starner wrote: > Why are you worried? Trademark law seems fairly simple (for laws), and > "open source" doesn't seem to make a difference here. It's just "We > have this trademark, registered on the 31 of February 2002, they're > using it without permission, and they igno

Re: GPL linking question

On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > Sounds like this would be in breech of the GPL? > > > > If the application requires GPLed code, then yes. > > On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 12:53:00PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > Requires in any sense? The app could use other SQL databases, > > but wou

Re: GPL linking question

On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 09:37:18AM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > Let's be specific here. If the program can use multiple databases, one > > of which is MySQL, then the distribution of that program can include > > MySQL so lon

Re: GPL linking question

On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Raul Miller wrote: > > > Being specific: if the program is distributed with MySQL, such that > > > by default it uses MySQL then we're definitely not talking about mere > > > aggregation. > > On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 06:16:32PM -0700, B